Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

if you guys like power armored bolters, why not try the sisters. at 11 pts/model they have the same save, weapon, bs and armor. i know they suck in cc but give each squad a veteran with the book of st. lucis and they always test leadership at 9. no modifiers. plus then they get faith, which means str. 5 in cc, a 3+ inv., or maybe initive 5. the celestians are ok, they have the holy hatred rule. i think they could do okay in combat if you give the veteran a eviscerator. for those of you who aren't familiar with wh, it's a 2 handed chainfist.
they COULD win with attrition in cc, a big maybe.

but the power of a list like this would be with the seraphim and cannoness. with hit and run, tie up enemy units, and wait for the large (up to 20 woman) squads to get close. when they do the seraphim hit and run, leaving the battle sisters in rapid fire range with divine guidance. it will kill stuff.

i think you could fit alot more bodies in a sister army. unfortunatly i doubt it would do as well as marines, but it would be different and unexpected.

@ Sebster- Yes, I am in the military, and I do understand in full view, that tactical squads (or just infantry for that matter) can play a very big role in combat (if used correctly). If you've read any of my other posts in other threads, or even this one, youll notice that Im a very big girm believer in the infantry, hint hint, the reason why I made this topic. My reasoning behind the idea of expensive models being a waste if killed quickly is this...
If you say, buy a tank, and its say..175 pnts, and this tank has a good main weapon, and say 2 subsiquent side sponson weapons which are also pretty decent. Now, then you go and add all these extra things to the vehicle to beef it up and make it look cool, but in ways are things you wont always use, OR have a low chance of really making a difference, and then it gets killed, 2nd turn, after it only killed 3 guys for a total points killed of 45. Now, if that tank in the end costed around like 200 points, and it kill 45pnts worth of guys, and it just gets knocked out quicker than the fat kid in dodge ball, it was a waste of points, AND a wasted space for something that could have been put in its place and done more. Now I know this game is about chance in the dice rolling, but you have to understand that there are somethings that are there, that yeah have a purpose, but something that isnt the greatest, are point fillers. Like HKM (hunter killer missles)...you get one shot, depending on your BS, you could hit, but theres that 50-50 chance. Now I dont have my codex here, but lets say it costs 15 points..now instead of having that missle that only works once, you could have given another unit something that could have helped them more, maybe frag grenades, a HW, the vet sgt a better ccw, something!!
Thats my whole reasoning behind that...understanding where if there are extra points (and in alot of lists there is) use them to help out other things. It can be viewed either way though, but the reason why I say this about vehicles, is because vehicles are one model. Squads can be 5-20 models...itll take a little bit more to take them out than tanks.

Yeah, but that predator tank, if it absorbs a full turn of fire from the other guy’s AT weapons before exploding, it might have done its job despite having only killed a few models itself. I’m not saying you buy a predator just to absorb fire then explode, but you might buy three of the things, knowing full well one of them will get trashed on the first turn before it’s had a chance to fire. It’s done its job though, as you’ve bought more time for the other two to

And that hunter-killer missile, if the threat of the missile stops the other guy deploying his basilisk in its preferred position, then maybe the missile was worth the points even if it subsequently missed its target.

When I run a ‘stealer list probably 70% or 80% of the killing is done by the ‘stealers, but the ‘stealers only cost about half the list total. By your ‘does it kill more than it costs view’ everything else in the list can be marked a failure, and only the ‘stealers There’s a few hundred points in gaunts and hormagaunts in there, and it’s a minor miracle if they kill anything at all, but they choke enemy lines, tarpit key units and generally ensure enough of my ‘stealers reach the enemy lines. The carnifex rarely earn their points back, but are vital for limiting the effect of the enemy tanks before my ‘stealers have reached his lines… Those other units may not score many victory points by themselves, but they make sure the ‘stealers can reach the other guy’s lines in sufficient numbers to win me the game.

What I’m saying is that good lists, lists that win games against good players, don’t require every unit to be a killing machine. They require every unit to contribute to the winning cause, and as often as not that contribution comes from something other than raw killing power.

Redmond wrote

If you say, buy a tank, and its say..175 pnts, and this tank has a good main weapon, and say 2 subsiquent side sponson weapons which are also pretty decent. Now, then you go and add all these extra things to the vehicle to beef it up and make it look cool, but in ways are things you wont always use, OR have a low chance of really making a difference, and then it gets killed, 2nd turn, after it only killed 3 guys for a total points killed of 45. Now, if that tank in the end costed around like 200 points, and it kill 45pnts worth of guys, and it just gets knocked out quicker than the fat kid in dodge ball, it was a waste of points, AND a wasted space for something that could have been put in its place and done more. Now I know this game is about chance in the dice rolling, but you have to understand that there are somethings that are there, that yeah have a purpose, but something that isnt the greatest, are point fillers. Like HKM (hunter killer missles)...you get one shot, depending on your BS, you could hit, but theres that 50-50 chance. Now I dont have my codex here, but lets say it costs 15 points..now instead of having that missle that only works once, you could have given another unit something that could have helped them more, maybe frag grenades, a HW, the vet sgt a better ccw, something!!

I absolutely agree, after seeing 750 points worth of Land Raiders blow up in 1 Turn from some dirty TAU. Man those Rail guns are bad.....

Sebster wrote

What I’m saying is that good lists, lists that win games against good players, don’t require every unit to be a killing machine. They require every unit to contribute to the winning cause, and as often as not that contribution comes from something other than raw killing power.

So are we in agreement Sebster? I liked the SOB army, @ 11 points each. However, whilst they are relatively inexpensive, for all of the added 'Grunt' that goes into a good 'ole SM, I think the Marines win out. If a SOB had to pay for all of the upgrades that Marines have (considering the general advantage of Wargear/Skills/Characters that SM's have access to. Oh-and Drop pods. I love them

akira5665 wrote:Redmond wrote

So are we in agreement Sebster? I liked the SOB army, @ 11 points each. However, whilst they are relatively inexpensive, for all of the added 'Grunt' that goes into a good 'ole SM, I think the Marines win out. If a SOB had to pay for all of the upgrades that Marines have (considering the general advantage of Wargear/Skills/Characters that SM's have access to. Oh-and Drop pods. I love them

I don't think we're really talking about the same thing. By my argument, directly comparing SoB to marines would only be a small part of the equation. Point for point, as bolter delivery units, the SoB wins comfortably given her significanty cheaper price. But there's so much else that goes into building an army, the SoB gets faith points, the marine gets a much wider variety of support vehicles, that simply comparing the two troops doesn't really produce a very useful idea about the two armies.

If you take all infantry then take a Master and start him on the table so you can take advantage of Rites of Battle. It will save your bacon and win games.

- G

Well...Im glad Akira sees where I was going...its just all about knowing your opponent, and using your strengths against their weakness, correctly.

Hey Redmond. The philosophy of war that we are espousing is a good one. Apparently well known, but I had a break for about 12 years so I missed alot.

Example: Mao Tse Tung:"Quality beats quantity. However, quantity has a certain quality of it's own"

IE If you have a clip with 20 bullets, and there are 26 guys running @ you with pitchforks-Who's gunna get punctured?(If they don't break and run!! )

Or 20 guys surrounding a Tank/Bunker is BAD news in anyone's book!!

Exactly, the Russians, who used the quantity idea of quality in some respects, defeated the Germans. In many ways, quality can be your best bet, but for IG players, everyone knows that a mass number of flash lights can do some damage

Not to sidetrack but Germany was also fighting several other countries in Africa and later in Europe. It was also being outmanufactured by both the US and Russia in tanks, men and weaponry.

That Russia won WW2 by throwing untrained conscripts at Germany doesn't show the worth of quantity, it shows that Germany was doomed as soon as it opened a second front and had two of the largest countries in population and manufacturing potential facing it.


Anyway, I'd recommend DA despite their Grey Knight-esque lameness for a number of reason-

Originality- As other's have told you the 6xman las/plas spam is mind-numbingly boring to play and play against.

Challenge- The SAFH Marine Horde is incredibly easy to run.

If you are going for pure Tactical Squad spam, DA do have some bonuses. Every Marine being a combat threat to vehicles of AV 12 or less is one, frags for all, bolt pistols on the charge.
Cheaper meltaguns and flamers.
The Combat Squad rule allowing you to take the same 'all comers' list but tailor between small and big squads depending on enemy.

Stelek wrote:They sucked in Rogue Trader.

They suck worse now.

They were great in 2nd Ed, and were as hard as nails in 3rd Ed thanks to the all-or-nothing Hull Down rules (except for the fact that they never moved).

They're egg-shells now in 4th.

BYE

I think I wrote a cc marine list for 1500 points that had 90+ marines in it. It used the Take the Fight to Them, and that one that gives you the extra flamer or melta. Armed with frop pods I think it would work like a charm. Especially since you could get 18 melta gun shots in usually from within 6 inches. Turn those mech players whiter than George Bush at a gay orgy.

@ Ratbarf - lol thats funny (about bush) but that would be a pretty interesting army to tell you the truth.

Just make an Alpha Legion with the SM codex, b/c you can not do it with the CSM. Infilitrate the whole army b/c there are alot of people who can not counter it.

Stelek wrote:

tegeus-Cromis wrote:akira, and Terminators aren't infantry since when?

Stelek, mass bikes a good idea? I know you're unbeatable and all-knowing and everything, but please share your reasoning and/or experience. I don't buy this claim.

Drop pods are a whole other thing. You're right, Dreads really come into their own when used that way.

Smurf lists and Ravenwing lists can run alot of bikes.

They used to suck, but now...they are almost as mobile as Eldar (can't avoid terrain is the difference).

Eating 30-40 bikes in one flank sucks if you aren't capable of mobility. Even if you are, unless it's a 24" mechanized list you can't get away...and there's nothing to stop them from speeding your way next turn.

I see alot of people run it as some kind of short-range shooty army.

It's a mass assault army is what it really is. Alot of armies have trouble putting enough bikers down, and that guaranteed turn 2 assault + invulnerable 3+ save first turn is alot of horse hockey.

I agree, my Space Marines never go to war without large numbers of bikes.

Shadow Scorpion wrote:
It was also being outmanufactured by both the US and Russia in tanks, men and weaponry.

That Russia won WW2 by throwing untrained conscripts at Germany doesn't show the worth of quantity, it shows that Germany was doomed as soon as it opened a second front and had two of the largest countries in population and manufacturing potential facing it.

It doesn't show that at all. How are you able to dismiss one argument without reason, then replace it with one that isn't even true as a matter of fact, when Germany went to war with russia the USA was still neutral.

You can even look at the smaller scale events which go to towards the first argument, for which the larger picture becomes somewhat meaningless. e.g. Uranus was about large numbers of still tactically inferior soviet troops fighting at a well thought out operational/strategic level, using numbers, space and German strategic blunders against the german tactical superiority. Stalingrad was held by feeding in huge numbers of men to die defending it, the relief attempts were held back by large numbers of troops getting in the way (enough with the weather to succeed). Balcks panzers in the aftermath demonstrated time and again that they could readily defeat whatever was in front of them but they couldn't be everywhere at once and were eventually bled dry. The soviets from late 42 onwards (accidently or deliberatly) focused on operations that relied heavily on using numbers to deliver strategic/operational level hammer blows against a tactically superior enemy.

Whilst the overall defeat of Germany may well be down to such factors as fighting to many enemies in to many theatres, that has no bearing on the what the eastern front quite clearly demonstrated - quantity used in an appropiate operational/strategic manner will trump an enemy relying more or less on purely on tactical superiority. If that tactical edge is well directed then great things can occur as Manstein showed in early 43, unfortunately by this stage there was to much operational interference coming from Hitler and the needed freedom to counter strategic hammer blows was just not allowed. The fact that a load of 'what ifs' about fighting on 2 fronts, out produced, etc might have changed things doesn't alter what did happen and what lessons can be drawn from what did happen.

While yes the above were serious errors. In the beginning of the Russian campaign Hitlers own generals were trying to ruin it. This is most evident when most of the winter clothing supply never reached the front because of imposed delays due to above influence.

PS: Sorry for Hijacking the thread.

As for an infantry based SM list. If you are going horde marine which means bodies over equipment you will run into problems with MC and tanks. (You take a lot less heavy weapons and fists.) If you are goign quality numbers than you will run into trouble from CC meteors such as the Broodlord and most nasty nids in general.